in Re State Farm Lloyds, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 11038

Ramirez homeowners sues State Farm for hail-damage losses and alleged bad-faith handling of claim.
MDL pretrial court adopted an ESI production protocol; case remanded to trial court for discovery disputes.
Real parties sought native/near-native ESI production; State Farm offered “reasonably usable” formats.
Trial court held an evidentiary hearing and ordered production in native/near-native formats; State Farm objected.
Rule 196.4 requires specific form requests and production or object; court must assess burden/benefit and possible cost-shifting.
Court denies mandamus, finding trial court acted within its discretion and burden not shown to be undue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
whether Rule 196.4 permits production only in reasonably usable forms	Ramirez argues native/near-native required; burden on State Farm unsupported	State Farm contends reasonably usable formats satisfy Rule 196.4	No; production must align with the form requested unless objections supported by evidence
whether trial court abused discretion by ordering native/near-native production	Ramirez show production in native form is necessary and feasible	State Farm shows burden outweighs benefit; evidence insufficient	No; record supports court’s decision given lack of undue burden evidence by State Farm

In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 2009) (ESI production form and reasonableness under Rule 196.4)
In re Harris, 315 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (Rule 196.4; burden and form-specific production)
In re Alford Chevrolet–Geo, 997 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1999) (burden showing required; undue burden standard)
In re Waste Mgmt. of Tex., Inc., 392 S.W.3d 861 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013) (neutral form of ESI production; caution on metadata)
In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. 2003) (discovery scope and relevance principles)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus standard; abuse of discretion)